Arthur v. Polk Borough School District
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 5, Oct. T., 1894, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. Venango Co., April T., 1891,-No. 2, dismissing bill in equity. Bill to restrain collection of tax.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 5, Oct. T., 1894, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. Venango Co., April T., 1891,-No. 2, dismissing bill in equity. Bill to restrain collection of tax. The case was referred to J. D. Chadwick, Esq., as master, who reported as follows: ■ “FINDING OF..FACTS. ■ “On Aug. 23, 1886, the■ borough of Polk was organized within Frenchcreek .township; under the laws of this commonwealth, and has since been a municipal' corporation and a school district independent of the school.district of Frenchcreek township. The boundary line of Polk borough divides the following lands, to wit: . “ Isaac…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
Two questions are presented by this appeal. The first relates to the power of a school district to levy and collect taxes upon lands lying outside of its boundaries. The second is over the proper remedy for the owner of the lands against whom the collection of such extra-territorial tax is attempted.
Both questions are well settled. The power of borough and township officers to levy taxes upon persons and property rests upon residence and location. The persons who live within the borough, and the lands inclosed by its lines, are subject to the jurisdiction of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Appeal of HarperSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- La Plume Borough v. GardnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
3Cited by13 opinions
- Knup v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- White v. Old York Road Country ClubSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Phipps v. School Dist. of PittsburghCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1940
- City of Lancaster v. PopeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
- Byers v. Hempfield TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.